Subject:
|
Re: Lugnet can always grow; it's up to us to make it happen.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Sun, 4 Nov 2001 19:50:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
991 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Maggie Cambron writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Dave Low writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Maggie Cambron writes:
> > > > I rarely can respond to things at such length
> > > > anymore, but it really warranted a kudos. (Yea, kudos is
> > > > singular, blame the Greeks.)
> > >
> > > Okay, Lindsay, I made a special trip from the second floor down to the
> > > basement to check my OED compact edition on this. Are you sure the word takes
> > > an indefinite article? None of the examples gave any indication that it
> > > does.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that it's an abstract noun (so by itself "kudos" should be
> > article free). But was it okay for Lindsay to break that rule to make his
> > point clearer?
>
> Heck, I wasn't even sure if he HAD broken a rule. The dictionary also said it
> was a colloquialism, particularly in academia, and since my copy is an edition
> last updated in 1974, I figured if anyone was up on the latest on the evolution
> of the word it would be Lindsay.
Not necessarily. I didn't do it to make the point (which
would have been wayyy off topic), I did it to imply that I
was saying kudos. I think you're right that it's abstract;
I should have put it in scare quotes, but I dislike them
enough that I was overcome. Honest, ociffer!
I didn't own a dictionary for 28+ years, alas. I only bought
one 18 months ago as a "Scrabble court of appeal."
> I am not convinced, however, that omission of the article would have made his
> point any less clear.
>
> Maggie (who actually agrees with those who say meaning should take precedence
> over grammar-- it's just that meaning is often obscured by the use of
> unconventional grammar)
Maybe we should change the thread name to "Lugnet can always
grow lexicographically?" :D I agree too, except that seeing
something that just looks *wrong* is distracting enough that
it interferes with our perception of the writer, whether we
admit it or not. Bad grammarians can recognize good writing,
just like good grammarians can; in fact, bad writers are even
more likely to be persuaded by an argument that is orthographically
correct, even when it's dead wrong. (I'll have to look up the
statistics. Someone did a study not too long ago and found this out.)
This may explain why so many people trust governments. :D
> > > Maggie C. (Queen of living on less-- I got the OED-- the two volume
> > > slip-cased edition with the magnifier in a little drawer-- for 2 bucks from a
> > > garage sale!)
> >
> > !!!!
> > ...we are not worthy...
>
> : D
Now I've just gotta ask HOW that came to be? I can see the
(unlikely) discussion now:
Seller: "Oh, yes, those OED volumes are for sale."
Maggie: "How much do you want for them?"
Seller: "Two dollars."
Maggie: "Really? That's a good preposition. Are they genuine?"
Seller: "Oh, yes, they're the definite article."
Maggie: "Why are you getting rid of them?"
Seller: "We've decided not to speak English anymore."
Maggie: "Waarom wil je dat?" (Not really)
Seller: "Bad memories. My uncle was slapped with a nominative
case. He hasn't been able to conjugate since."
(groan)
apologetically,
LFB
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
105 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
